So, I ditched my attempt at NaNoWriMo once again. I think I got to about 12,000 words before I backed out entirely. That's twice as well as I did two years ago. I figure another 16 years or so, and I might just be able to finish. This is the busy season at work, and by the time I get home, I just don't feel like doing anything creative. C'est la vie.
However, I am working on developing a project that will begin next year. I'm planning on starting a different blog that relates entirely to the Little Rock Planning Department, and issues related to zoning, planning, and land usage in and around Little Rock. The plan (partially) is to include overviews of proposed zoning changes, effects of increased land usage, observations on trends with building permits and such, and every so often a more scholarly look at zoning, hopefully with primary source interviews.
I'm drafting out the architecture on paper. And I have to do some research related to finding out when Planning Commission meetings take place and procedural and parliamentary rules, specifically for Little Rock. I may even attend a meeting or two or three. I've been to them in the past, and you'd be amazed at how riled up people get in relation to zoning.
So, there you have it. I'm planning on starting this at the beginning of next year, since Little Rock's fiscal year starts in January. Makes for an even-footing in relation to reporting.
Ideas are welcome on how I can make this very didactic topic more accessible for the mainstream public.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Dick Morris is Bad for America
I'm linking this to a blog under the purview of Dick Morris. While I would appreciate his website not getting footprints, I thought it prudent to include Primary Sources (since Morris obviously doesn't). You can trust that I will reproduce the pertinent parts of his blog entry here in complete form with appropriate commentary.
The general outline of the article is that the attacks at Ft. Hood were a terrorist attack. From there, he goes on to denigrate President Obama for not calling the act a terrorist act. He warns that ignoring terrorist attacks such as these will lead to a future 9/11, the same way that Clinton ignoring attacks on the World Trade Center led to 9/11.
Firstly, while I do not wish to belittle the tragic loss of life that occurred at Ft. Hood, I take issue with calling it a 'terrorist act.' As Morris stated, "In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since 9-11." Terrorism, by definition, implies a criminal act of sufficient magnitude to inspire fear in a sizable percentage of the population. And I will not take issue with saying that a decent percentage of Americans felt some form of over-generalized, irrational fear because of this act.
However, calling it a terrorist act implies that Hasan had larger aims than simply killing Americans. From the reports I've read relating to the attack, it seems that something in Hasan's head just snapped. I don't think he's in his right mind. I don't think he knows what he did that day. But it's useless to speculate because he's comatose, and we've found no direct evidence to indicate his motives. So speculation is useless on my part, and on Dick Morris'.
Morris' entire basis for a motive exhists in the phrase Hasan uttered before opening fire, "Alla-hu Akbar." Translated, it means something equivalent to "Allah is the Greatest." This certainly clarifies Hasan as a Muslim and that perhaps this act was done in the name of Allah, but in this article, he doesn't make a distinction between a Muslim killing in the name of God and a Christian killing in the name of God.
He is, however, making a distinction between this attack and other attacks that have injured numerous people. "[Obama] is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings," Morris states because Obama referred to the attack as act “of violence.” Morris goes on to say, "This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed," implying that attacks on shopping malls, homes, offices and bars are not terroristic in nature. Maybe Morris just forgets that Puerto Rico is a part of US soil. Republicans usually do.
And Morris obviously doesn't consider the case of Linh Voong, who killed 14 people a terrorist act. After all, I'm sure Morris would point out that Voong wasn't a Muslim. Obama also called that attack an act of "senseless violence."
Herein lies part of Morris' problem, he is quick to label this attack as 'terrorist' without further knowledge, and thus, perpetuates the idea that this is terrorism, thereby causing more terror.
The real shame comes later in his article: "There may be no groups behind Major Hasan’s attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama [emphasis mine]."
Firstly, Hasan did not use military weapons, so this should not be an issue. Secondly, as a habit, men in uniform don't walk around base with weapons. After all, it's their home. Only Military Police have active weapons, just like cops on the street do. Thirdly, had Hasan desired access to military weapons, he would have to go to the armory to get them issued; he didn't because he knew the Armorers wouldn't just hand over a gun to him. Fourthly, 'full access' is most likely not granted to a Major that is a psychiatrist. They have less needs for guns. Lastly, Hasan DIDN'T USE A MILITARY-ISSUED WEAPON!!!! He used a gun (with cop-killer bullets) that he purchased legally at a Texas gun shop. If there's any laxity here, it's in our nation's gun laws.
The latter part of Morris' statement is along the lines of something said on "Fox and Friends" the day after the shooting. Gretchen Carlson suggested that "political correctness" was the reason behind the attacks because the military did not investigate Hasan because he was a Muslim, implying that the military should investigate Muslims serving in order to guarantee that they don't have radical views. They do have these investigations: I believe it happens during Army entrance exams and regular performance reviews to determine if you have the mental fortitude to handle being in the military.
I think, however, that Morris wants to go a step further: From the tone of his article, he wants to investigate all Muslims serving in the military through invasion of privacy and rescinding the proviso that, in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Morris: "That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama." This ignores the fact that Obama has made no changes to military security procedures in his tenure, since largely that's left up to the military bureacracy. Obama doesn't really have much of a say in the bureacratic methods of the military....just the engagement of troops.
However, we cannot enact "measures" that invade the privacy of individuals, even within the military in the name of prevention of terrorism. The only thing worse than a military with a few tortured souls in it, is a military afraid to have opinions and individual thought for fear of retribution by the anti-terrorist wing of America.
This attack was NOT terrorism. It was the equivalent of a deranged employee going to work and massacering his co-workers. Sad? Yes. Regretable? Yes. Terrorism? No.
EDIT: I make one caveat to my claim that this attack was "not terrorism." It is possible that future information may be made available that indicates that this was an act of terrorism. However, as of today, with no political motive made apparent, it is useless for Morris or me to conjecture. However, even if this was an act of terrorism, it would not be a decree to invade civil liberties involving freedom of thought for military personnel. I don't know how Morris could honestly think this could have been prevented without violating the civil liberties of Hasan. This lends me to think that this is merely another rhetorical strategy he is employing to denigrate Obama.
The general outline of the article is that the attacks at Ft. Hood were a terrorist attack. From there, he goes on to denigrate President Obama for not calling the act a terrorist act. He warns that ignoring terrorist attacks such as these will lead to a future 9/11, the same way that Clinton ignoring attacks on the World Trade Center led to 9/11.
Firstly, while I do not wish to belittle the tragic loss of life that occurred at Ft. Hood, I take issue with calling it a 'terrorist act.' As Morris stated, "In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since 9-11." Terrorism, by definition, implies a criminal act of sufficient magnitude to inspire fear in a sizable percentage of the population. And I will not take issue with saying that a decent percentage of Americans felt some form of over-generalized, irrational fear because of this act.
However, calling it a terrorist act implies that Hasan had larger aims than simply killing Americans. From the reports I've read relating to the attack, it seems that something in Hasan's head just snapped. I don't think he's in his right mind. I don't think he knows what he did that day. But it's useless to speculate because he's comatose, and we've found no direct evidence to indicate his motives. So speculation is useless on my part, and on Dick Morris'.
Morris' entire basis for a motive exhists in the phrase Hasan uttered before opening fire, "Alla-hu Akbar." Translated, it means something equivalent to "Allah is the Greatest." This certainly clarifies Hasan as a Muslim and that perhaps this act was done in the name of Allah, but in this article, he doesn't make a distinction between a Muslim killing in the name of God and a Christian killing in the name of God.
He is, however, making a distinction between this attack and other attacks that have injured numerous people. "[Obama] is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings," Morris states because Obama referred to the attack as act “of violence.” Morris goes on to say, "This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed," implying that attacks on shopping malls, homes, offices and bars are not terroristic in nature. Maybe Morris just forgets that Puerto Rico is a part of US soil. Republicans usually do.
And Morris obviously doesn't consider the case of Linh Voong, who killed 14 people a terrorist act. After all, I'm sure Morris would point out that Voong wasn't a Muslim. Obama also called that attack an act of "senseless violence."
Herein lies part of Morris' problem, he is quick to label this attack as 'terrorist' without further knowledge, and thus, perpetuates the idea that this is terrorism, thereby causing more terror.
The real shame comes later in his article: "There may be no groups behind Major Hasan’s attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama [emphasis mine]."
Firstly, Hasan did not use military weapons, so this should not be an issue. Secondly, as a habit, men in uniform don't walk around base with weapons. After all, it's their home. Only Military Police have active weapons, just like cops on the street do. Thirdly, had Hasan desired access to military weapons, he would have to go to the armory to get them issued; he didn't because he knew the Armorers wouldn't just hand over a gun to him. Fourthly, 'full access' is most likely not granted to a Major that is a psychiatrist. They have less needs for guns. Lastly, Hasan DIDN'T USE A MILITARY-ISSUED WEAPON!!!! He used a gun (with cop-killer bullets) that he purchased legally at a Texas gun shop. If there's any laxity here, it's in our nation's gun laws.
The latter part of Morris' statement is along the lines of something said on "Fox and Friends" the day after the shooting. Gretchen Carlson suggested that "political correctness" was the reason behind the attacks because the military did not investigate Hasan because he was a Muslim, implying that the military should investigate Muslims serving in order to guarantee that they don't have radical views. They do have these investigations: I believe it happens during Army entrance exams and regular performance reviews to determine if you have the mental fortitude to handle being in the military.
I think, however, that Morris wants to go a step further: From the tone of his article, he wants to investigate all Muslims serving in the military through invasion of privacy and rescinding the proviso that, in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Morris: "That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama." This ignores the fact that Obama has made no changes to military security procedures in his tenure, since largely that's left up to the military bureacracy. Obama doesn't really have much of a say in the bureacratic methods of the military....just the engagement of troops.
However, we cannot enact "measures" that invade the privacy of individuals, even within the military in the name of prevention of terrorism. The only thing worse than a military with a few tortured souls in it, is a military afraid to have opinions and individual thought for fear of retribution by the anti-terrorist wing of America.
This attack was NOT terrorism. It was the equivalent of a deranged employee going to work and massacering his co-workers. Sad? Yes. Regretable? Yes. Terrorism? No.
EDIT: I make one caveat to my claim that this attack was "not terrorism." It is possible that future information may be made available that indicates that this was an act of terrorism. However, as of today, with no political motive made apparent, it is useless for Morris or me to conjecture. However, even if this was an act of terrorism, it would not be a decree to invade civil liberties involving freedom of thought for military personnel. I don't know how Morris could honestly think this could have been prevented without violating the civil liberties of Hasan. This lends me to think that this is merely another rhetorical strategy he is employing to denigrate Obama.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Mother? May I NaNoWriMo?
I'm in a writing mood, and it's a good thing, too, because about two and a half hours ago, I decided to participate in NaNoWriMo for the first time since a failed and dismal attempt three years ago. While my previous story was basically going to be an allegory for the journey through Core I in the UCA Honors College (I was a PA at the time, so it seemed appropriate), this one is a little bit more realistic fiction. No fantasy shit going on.
Actually, after today, I really have no idea where this story is going to go. I had a really good run tonight: Got all the way to 1675 words, which is respectably above the 1667 words I need to write daily to make it to the 50,000 word requirement by the end of November.
My problem as it stands: I'm apparently writing a very serialized version of a story. For instance, the segment I wrote tonight begins and ends. It ends on a question mark, but it still ends. The 1,667 words I have so far can stand by themselves. I'm fairly certain that tomorrow when I pick up writing some more, I'll end up writing another compartmentalized story that can stand by itself. And so forth and so on ad thirty dayseum. Maybe these stories will intersect. I hope so. Maybe these stories will only have passing references to each other. I don't know. I'll let you know twenty-nine days from now.
Charles Dickens, eat your JJ Abrams heart out.
Actually, after today, I really have no idea where this story is going to go. I had a really good run tonight: Got all the way to 1675 words, which is respectably above the 1667 words I need to write daily to make it to the 50,000 word requirement by the end of November.
My problem as it stands: I'm apparently writing a very serialized version of a story. For instance, the segment I wrote tonight begins and ends. It ends on a question mark, but it still ends. The 1,667 words I have so far can stand by themselves. I'm fairly certain that tomorrow when I pick up writing some more, I'll end up writing another compartmentalized story that can stand by itself. And so forth and so on ad thirty dayseum. Maybe these stories will intersect. I hope so. Maybe these stories will only have passing references to each other. I don't know. I'll let you know twenty-nine days from now.
Charles Dickens, eat your JJ Abrams heart out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
